30 Jan 11
Originally posted by techsouthI got more out of Anthem than Fountainhead. It is very much to the point if that's what you prefer.
This audio book started with a forward by Rand herself. At this point, I'm guessing that Roark is her alter-ego, and thus any criticism offered would bounce off her like it would bounce off Roark.
She preemptively (at least for my reading) defended the fact that characters were not wholly realistic, but rather meant to illustrate an ideal. I see that ...[text shortened]... I've got now, and I really hope Rand packs some surprises in the second half of this book.
30 Jan 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFunny. I breezed through Atlas Shrugged, in a couple of weeks, but struggled with Fountainhead, because so much seemed contradictory, and made me uneasy.
You ain't seen epic length until you've tried to read Atlas Shrugged. Fountainhead was a pleasure to read in contrast. I never finished the former. I tried, I really did.
30 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauderTrade strictly speaking doesn't equal capitalism. Capitalism refers to the use of excess production (that which we don't require for survival) to make our productive effort more effective, efficient and therefore profitable.
This is incorrect; there was trade long before there was capitalism.
The industrial revolution was born of capitalism. A man with a shovel may be able to dig one hole a day. Ten men with ten shovels would then dig ten holes, but capital is required to buy the ten shovels. One man may be able to dig the ten holes by himself, or perhaps even 100 holes, if he has the capital to invest in a backhoe.
Laizzez faire simply refers to the trade without force or fraud in a capitalist system. Capitalism leads to economic growth which results from increased efficiency and productivity. Laissez faire only prevents force or fraud by government or either bargaining party.
30 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWell, well, look who is falling into rant mode...
I am a little surprised you'd keep this one alive Cliff, sometimes it's better to help threads fade away as quickly as possible by staying away from them, you know, try to save some face.
I said: "...ill researched hack job." in reference to the article you posted, the link you posted, natually enough eh. I did read the article and it was not written by lly published.
A kudos to no1 for starting this thread, thumbs up, no1.
But Ford didn't come up with Evva Pryror, McConnell did. So anything said by her should be attributed to him.
More from Pryror:
Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute.
“She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive
the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social
Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was
going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that
there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political
discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time.
The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see
that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost
an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped
out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her
entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it.
She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
Patia Stephens wrote of Rand:
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of
American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel
“Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle.
Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an
editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato
Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told
friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that
would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968.
So, it is pretty obvious, that while you believe that it was okay for Rand to take the government money since she had paid into it, she did not. I think that it is awesome that you have greater insight into what she believed than someone who knew her and spoke directly to her about these issues. Or maybe it is that you are blinded to the truth by the myth that you have wrapped her in. She was human. She struggled with the hypocrisy of her decision, but in the end she caved. She would not have been one of the heroes of her own books. She would have been an example of weak will and character.
30 Jan 11
Originally posted by normbenignNo, capitalism refers to government protecting and guaranteeing the right to private property.
Trade strictly speaking doesn't equal capitalism. Capitalism refers to the use of excess production (that which we don't require for survival) to make our productive effort more effective, efficient and therefore profitable.
The industrial revolution was born of capitalism. A man with a shovel may be able to dig one hole a day. Ten men with ten sho ...[text shortened]... ctivity. Laissez faire only prevents force or fraud by government or either bargaining party.
Capitalism predates the industrial revolution by 150 years or so. The earliest bond issues (perhaps a good indication of the "start" of capitalism) were not used for "digging holes", but to fund trade fleets of the VOC. In those days sailing to the East was a risky, but also very profitable business, and the stock market soon flourished.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Jan 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's true that government protecting the right to private property is essential to capitalism, but your example indicates that it is also essential that the property owner be able to apply that property to the production of goods and services to be sold at a profit that accrues to the property owner. Of course it is in the interest of the private property owner that the government be strong enough and be directed toward the defense of the owner's property rights. Thus, some funding of government activities will drain off some profits, whether directly by a tax on profits, indirectly by taking some part of the wages ostensibly paid to the workers, etc.
No, capitalism refers to government protecting and guaranteeing the right to private property.
Capitalism predates the industrial revolution by 150 years or so. The earliest bond issues (perhaps a good indication of the "start" of capitalism) were not used for "digging holes", but to fund trade fleets of the VOC. In those days sailing to the East was a risky, but also very profitable business, and the stock market soon flourished.
Partial funding of trade fleets by the government with the idea of profiting from the sales was another approach. It looks like we just did something like that with GM.
You probably know this but as a side note, crew members in those early trade fleets were often capitalists themselves. They were given space on the ship to store goods they purchased as individuals from the vendors in the East; goods that they could sell when they returned. This had benefits including attracting crew at a lower wage and forging loyalty to the enterprise.
01 Feb 11
Originally posted by CliffLandinAppreciate the comment on my awesomeness, but I do not profess to know how Rand felt about receiving SS or whatever. My whole point has been that there is no hypocrisy in taking what is due, it's a common enough accusation directed at libertarians and objectivists, I'm pretty sure Rand made use of public roads occasionally and the situation is the same, she paid for the road through taxation so she has a right to use the road, she paid her SS so she has a right to it, no contradictions and no hypocrisy.
Well, well, look who is falling into rant mode...
But Ford didn't come up with Evva Pryror, McConnell did. So anything said by her should be attributed to him.
More from Pryror:
Evva Joan Pryor, who had been a social worker in New York in the 1970s, was interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ay ...[text shortened]... one of the heroes of her own books. She would have been an example of weak will and character.
"But Ford didn't come up with Evva Pryror, McConnell did. So anything said by her should be attributed to him. "
So McConnell called Rand a vip dipper? So McConnell said Rand died of lung cancer? So McConnell said Rand was a hypocrite? So McConnell said Rand was named after a type writer. Also if Pryror said it, it needs to be attributed to Pryror, hardly what I'd call an impartial credible witness but her account doesn't make much a difference anyway, Here's what I'd put my money on: She had a debate with Rand got her ass kicked and ends up being bitter about it. We see it often enough right here on the debates board. Perhaps you have some more credentials on Pryror besides 'petty bureaurat'?
That the CATO Institute calls Rand a founder of libertarianism would not sit too well with Rand, in fact she had some rather not nice things to say about libertarians, the short version is that you can't have the 'what' i.e. capitalism (as advocated by libertarians) without the 'why' i.e. objectivism, she believed libertarians were doing more harm than good (as a BTW for those that like throwing labels at me I am a libertarian, not a Randian or Objectivist) to the cause of freedom, there is merit in that idea.
So your introduction of two other 'principled' libertarians isn't helpful to your case, did either of these other two 'principled' libertarians make use of a public road? and what bearing it has on our discussion that someone died in 1968 is anyones guess.
Rand was a human she did make mistakes, that has been precisely my argument earlier on this thread, no1 wants to judge Rand on every action in her life held against a philosophy that took a life time to shape, that's silly. It has been recognised often enough that the characters in her book are ideals.
I'll sign off now, but leave the last words to you:
"I think that it is awesome that you have greater insight into what she believed than someone who knew her and spoke directly to her about these issues."
"She struggled with the hypocrisy of her decision, but in the end she caved."
Looks like you're the awesome dude cliff, by your own words that is 😕
